I agree to a point, good risk scenario modelling will tell you to weight your risk based on likelihood, so we may have a scenario that is highly unlikely so it would be weighted lower.
And I think that going down the line of having too specific a restriction is not good corporate governance when it comes to the bylaws either, its not the place for such a targeted restriction.

Our bylaws should get the point of this whole discussion across clearly and simply restrict ICANN to its actual role, technical coordination, we don’t want ICANN to be in the position of being content police no matter how it ends up in that situation. I hope the majority of us can agree with this. At the same time we don’t want to restrict ICANN for executing its contracts as it requires itself to be able to do, I think all of us agree on that. However by wordsmithing detailed technical descriptions into the bylaws I think we are missing the ethos of what this restriction is supposed to do.

We don’t want ICANN to be able to insert ‘voluntary’ provisions into its contracts that allow it to stray outside its mission.
We don’t want ICANN to be able to or be placed into a position of policing content
We don’t want ICANN to be the policeman of the internet
We want ICANN to be able to enter into contracts an enforce them, when they have been entered into in good faith with regards to ICANNs mission and role within the DNS ecosystem

We need to collectively step back and assess the simplest language to effect these goals.

-j

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday 22 November 2015 at 2:10 p.m.
To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)

Hi,

I was going in the pattern of thought of Paul and I think scenarios is what will help determine what other wordings are required in ICANN mission statement. I hope you will agree with me that mission statement should not be written around a future that is not going to happen; Any restrictive mission statement/wording needs to be well understood in the present otherwise it's future could create unintended consequences.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 22 Nov 2015 15:02, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
As we have said all along we are planning for the future not relying on the past. We need to make sure that our bylaws are suitable for the next 18 years of ICANN.
Lets not get caught up in looking for examples from the past and focus on lowering the potential risk in the future. The problem is that examples are always going to be subjective based on the proponent and their stance. I think we need to accept that a majority of the community feels that there is a potential risk that needs mitigation, the work we should be doing is working out the best way to implement that mitigation rather than going back and forth on examples.

If we can’t come to agreement on alternative wording then we have to default back to the existing text that was in the 2nd draft report.

-jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday 22 November 2015 at 1:55 p.m.
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)

Hi,

A lot has been said, there has been examples and counter examples as well. Could you share at least one example that has survived being countered and most importantly a mission wording that will adequately address that example.

Thanks

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 22 Nov 2015 00:42, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

Yes but there have been many such examples already e.g. Melton 5 minutes ago.  We are already in the drafting.  So this seems a bit retrograde mo?

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 21 November 2015, 05:13PM -06:00 from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:

Hello Paul,

>>   I read the concerns about the restriction clause as suggesting that it be deleted (perhaps I am wrong in this)

No- we didn’t say that a restriction clause should be deleted.

We said:

" The Board asks that the CCWG provide some examples of what the
CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do.
That information can then be provided to counsel to see if text can be
drafted to address the broader concerns."


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community